PODCAST: CETA, ISDS, and the Belgian Veto – A Warning of Failure for Future Trade Agreements with the EU?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.03.17
The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) was expected to be finalized in the fall of 2016. However, final agreement was vetoed by politicians in Belgium, specifically by parties in Wallonia and Brussels, over issues related to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapter.
Ian Laird and Flip Petillion, partners in Crowell & Moring’s International Dispute Resolution Group, sit down for this special Crowell & Moring podcast to discuss CETA—what happened and what it could mean for the future of EU and Canada trade, and international investment arbitration.
Ian, resident in the firm's Washington, D.C. office, is a Canadian-qualified lawyer and previously served as chief of staff to a Canadian cabinet minister, as well as a senior political aide to the Ontario Minister of Energy. Ian represents companies engaged in U.S.-Canada trade and business relations and has provided counsel on NAFTA dispute settlement issues for more than 15 years.
Flip, resident in Crowell & Moring's Brussels office, is a leading domestic and international negotiator, litigator, and arbitrator. He has been handling arbitrations for more than 25 years.
Discussed in this 27 minute podcast:
- How it's possible for individual regions within a signatory country to block the agreement.
- The objections raised against CETA and the ISDS chapter.
- What to expect next.
- Implications on future trade agreements with the EU.
Click below to listen or access from the link:
SoundCloud
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
